CHAPTER TWO: - WHAT IS STATE?

• So far we‘ve come to know what is state and what it does. Now the
question arises in one’s mind as to how and when exactly the state
originated.

• Unlike natural Science we cannot be certain and exact in estimating out

the date of origin of the state.

• It, therefore, compels us to know the various propositions regarding the

origin and hence so many theories telling their own ways

In political science, the term state refers to a political entity with a

defined territory, population, government, and sovereignty. It is the
fundamental unit of political organization and authority in the modern
world, with the ability to make and enforce laws within its boundaries. A
state can exist independently or as part of a larger political system (such
as a federation). Below is a detailed exploration of the various aspects of
the state in political science

1. Elements of the State:

Political scientists generally agree that a state has four essential

components:

 Territory: A state must have a clearly defined geographical area

that it controls. This includes land, airspace, and often maritime
zones. Territorial integrity is a fundamental aspect of sovereignty,
and disputes over borders are common in international politics.
 Population: A state must have people who live within its borders.
The population can be diverse in terms of ethnicity, language,
religion, and other characteristics. The population forms the social
base of the state and can influence its policies and governance.
 Government: The government is the administrative apparatus or
institution that exercises authority and manages the state's affairs.
The government can take many forms, such as democracy,
dictatorship, monarchy, or technocracy, and it is responsible for
creating and enforcing laws, implementing policies, and ensuring
public order. It can be divided into branches (executive, legislative,
and judicial) depending on the state’s political system.
 Sovereignty: Sovereignty refers to the state’s supreme authority
to govern itself without external interference. This means that the
state has the right to make decisions concerning its own political,
economic, and legal systems. Sovereignty is recognized both
domestically (by its people) and internationally (by other states).

2. Types of States:

States can be classified in various ways, based on their political structure,

form of government, and relationship with other entities:
  Nation-State: A nation-state is a state whose political boundaries
align with a specific nation or cultural group. The idea of the nation-
state has become more prominent in the modern era, where the
state represents a group of people who share common cultural,
historical, or linguistic ties. Examples include Japan, France, and
Iceland.
 Multi-National State: A multi-national state contains multiple
distinct cultural, ethnic, or national groups within its borders. It may
involve a central government that holds power over various national
groups (e.g., India, Canada, and Belgium).
 Federal State: A federal state is one in which power is divided
between a central government and regional governments (such as
states or provinces). Each level of government has constitutionally
defined powers. Examples include the United States, Germany, and
India.
 Unitary State: In a unitary state, power is concentrated in a central
government. While there may be local administrative divisions, the
central government has the primary authority and can alter or
dissolve local powers. Examples include France, Japan, and the
United Kingdom.
 Failed States: A failed state is a political entity that can no longer
provide basic services or maintain control over its territory and
population. This may occur due to civil war, corruption, or loss of
legitimacy. In a failed state, the government is unable to maintain
law and order, and there may be a lack of effective governance,
which leads to the collapse of state functions (e.g., Somalia, South
Sudan).

3. Functions of the State:

The state is responsible for several key functions within its territory, which
include but are not limited to:

 Maintaining Order and Security: One of the primary functions of

the state is to maintain peace and security. This is typically
achieved through law enforcement, the judiciary, and the military. A
state must prevent internal disorder, enforce laws, and defend its
borders from external threats.
 Protection of Rights and Freedoms: In democratic states, the
government is expected to protect the rights and freedoms of its
citizens (such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly). These
protections are often enshrined in a constitution or legal framework.
 Providing Public Goods and Services: The state is responsible
for providing infrastructure (such as roads, bridges, and public
transportation), education, healthcare, and other public services
that contribute to the welfare of the population.
 Economic Management: A state plays a central role in managing
its economy by regulating markets, ensuring financial stability,
promoting economic growth, and addressing issues such as
 unemployment, inflation, and poverty. The state may intervene in
the economy through policies like taxation, trade agreements, and
monetary policy.
 Diplomacy and Foreign Relations: States interact with each
other through diplomacy, forming treaties, alliances, and trade
agreements. Foreign relations are key to maintaining peace,
fostering economic ties, and addressing global issues like climate
change and terrorism.
 Legitimacy and Political Authority: The state derives its
legitimacy from the consent of the governed (in democratic states)
or through other means such as traditional authority or military
power (in non-democratic states). Political legitimacy is crucial for
maintaining public support and compliance with laws.

THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF STATE 

Various attempts to explain state;  various philosophers explain different

ways;

(1) Force Theory

(2) The Divine Theory

(3) The Social-Contract Theory

(4) The Historical or Evolutionary theory

THE FORCE THEORY 

 Key Figures: No specific theorist, but associated with early political

philosophers like Plato and Aristotle.
 Explanation: According to the Force Theory, the state originated
through the use of force, coercion, and conquest. One group or
individual used power to dominate others, establishing control over
a territory and its population.
o This theory suggests that early states formed when individuals
or groups with superior power (e.g., warlords, military leaders)
imposed their rule over others, creating centralized political
authority. The creation of the state is seen as a result of
violence and domination rather than consent.

It emphasizes the origin of the State in the subordination of the weak to

the strong. A person physically stronger can capture and enslaved the
weak. Having increased the number of his followers, over whom he
exercised undisputed authority, he became a tribal chief

The powerful conquered the weak - this process of conquest and

domination continued till the victorious tribe secured control over a
definite territory.

Implications of the Theory of Force:

 I) Force is not only a historical factor, but is present essential feature of
the State

II) The States were born of force only

III) Power is their justification and raison d'être

IV) The maintenance and extension of power within and without is the
sole aim of the State

The state came into existence as a result of the forced subjection of the
weak to the strong.  Two arguments in force theory

(1) One group of thinkers used this theory to justify the state on the
ground that the state is power, that might makes right and that the
essence of the state is a sovereign will.

(2) Second group, to attack the state because of its injustice and urge
individual freedom and limited state action

In middle ages theologians argued that, the state was based upon force
and injustice and decried the origin of earthly sovereignty in order to
subordinate temporal to spiritual power.  Individualist & anarchist believe
that the State is an evil because of their desire for individual freedom. 
Socialist believes that, the state resulted from the aggression and
exploitation of labourers by capitalist and attack, not the idea of the state
itself.

The DIVINE THEORY 

 Key Figures: James I of England, Robert Filmer.

 Explanation: The Divine Right Theory asserts that the state was
created by divine intervention, and rulers are appointed by God to
govern on His behalf. According to this theory, the legitimacy of the
state and its rulers is derived from divine will, and rulers are
accountable only to God, not to the people.
o This idea was particularly prominent in monarchies during the
Middle Ages and early modern periods, where kings and
emperors claimed that their authority was sanctioned by God,
thus justifying absolute power and unquestionable authority.

During the large part of human history the state was viewed as direct
divine creation.  Early oriental empires rulers claimed a divine tight to
control the affairs of their subjects and this right was seldom questioned. 
The Hebrews believed – divine origin  Spat between State Concept &
Christianity Pope

The State, its advocates maintain was created by God and governed by
His deputy or vicegerent.

• He (God) sent His deputy to rule over them.

• The ruler was a divinely appointed agent and he was responsible for his
actions to God alone.

• As the ruler was the deputy of God, obedience to him was held to be a
religious duty and resistance a sin

Nobody could limit his will and restrict his power.

• His word was law and his actions were always just and benevolent.

• To complain against the authority of the ruler and to characterize his

actions as unjust was a sin for which there was divine punishment

Evolution OF DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE STATE

This theory is so enunciated, believed in and accepted, thus, implied:

• i) That God deliberately created the State and this specific act of His
grace was to save mankind from destruction.

• ii) God sent his Deputy or Vice-regent to rule over mankind

Criticism of the divine origin of the state

• The divine rights of kings /Monarchy is divinely ordained and the King
draws his authority from God.

• Monarchy is hereditary and it is the divine right of a King that it should

pass from father to son.

• The King is answerable to God alone and resistance to the lawful

authority of a King is a sin

Social Contract Theory  This theory, advanced by thinkers like Thomas

Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, argues that the state is
the result of an agreement among individuals who consent to give up
certain freedoms in exchange for security and order. The government, in
this view, derives its authority from the consent of the governed.

 Key Figures: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

 Explanation: The Social Contract Theory suggests that the state
emerged as a result of an agreement or "contract" between
individuals to form a society and establish a governing authority for
mutual protection and the preservation of order.
o Hobbes: In his work Leviathan (1651), Hobbes argued that in
the state of nature, humans lived in constant fear and conflict.
To escape this chaotic state, individuals agreed to surrender
their individual freedoms to a sovereign authority in exchange
for protection and security.
o Locke: Locke believed that the state emerged as a result of
people agreeing to form a government to protect their natural
rights to life, liberty, and property. However, unlike Hobbes,
 Locke emphasized that the government's power should be
limited and based on the consent of the governed.
o Rousseau: Rousseau argued in The Social Contract (1762)
that people in the state of nature were free but that the
development of private property led to inequality. He
proposed that individuals should come together to form a
collective "general will" that would serve the common good.
This general will, expressed through direct democracy, would
legitimize the state's authority.

In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model,

originating during the age of enlightenment that typically addresses the
questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the
state over the individual.  Social contract arguments typically hypothesize
that, individuals have consented, either openly or tacitly, to surrender
some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or
magistrate, in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.  The
question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is
often an aspect of social contract theory.

• The state of nature was not an organized society. Each man living there
in led a life of his own, uncontrolled by any laws of human imposition.

• Social Contract is a Voluntary agreement made amongst individuals

through which an organized society, or State, is brought into existence.

• Hobbes, Locke Rousseau as original thinkers and revived by John Rawls

in modern times

Elements of Social Contract Theory

➢ the image of a hypothetical stateless society, i.e. a state of nature is

established. Unconstrained freedom means that life is ‘solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short’.

➢ Individuals therefore seek to escape from the state of nature by

entering into a social contract, recognizing that only a sovereign power
can secure order and stability.

➢ the social contract obliges citizens to respect and obey the state;
ultimately in gratitude for the stability and security that only a system of
political rule can deliver.

Some Proponents of Social Contract Theory

Thomas Hobbes

• The State of Nature: characterized as the pre-social phase of human

nature “the liberty that each man has to use his own power for the
preservation of his own nature.” Man not at all social, indeed “nothing but
grief in the company of his fellows”- all being almost equally selfish, self-
seeking, egoistic, brutal and aggressive.
The Contract: Agreed to surrender their natural rights into the hands of
common superior and to obey his commands. A contract binding each and
all too unquestioning obedience to a sovereign could really establish a
stable commonwealth.

John Locke

• The State of Nature: It was pre-political and not presocial. Man was
neither, selfish nor self- seeking, nor aggressive. Men were equal and free
to act they thought fit, but within the bounds of the law of nature.

• Need for Civil Society According to Locke, this “ill condition” was due to
three important wants which remained unsatisfied in the state of nature:

i) The want of an established, settled, known law

ii) ii) The want of a known and indifferent judge, and
iii) iii) The want of an executing power to enforce just decisions.

The social contract was no more than a transfer of certain rights and
powers so that man’s remaining rights would be protected and preserved.
The contract was for limited and specific purposes and what was given up
was transferred to the community as a whole and not to a man or to an
assembly of men.

Two Contracts:

i) A Social Contract which brought into being the civil society or the State.

ii) A governmental contract when society in its corporate capacity

established a government and selected a ruler to remove the
inconveniences, which necessitates the formation of the civil society or
the State.

Locke recognized the existence of 3 powers in the civil society or the

State: Legislative, executive and federative.

In the context of the state of nature, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both
have distinct interpretations of what "pre-social" and "pre-political" mean.
Here’s how each philosopher views these concepts:

1. Thomas Hobbes: Pre-Social

In Hobbes' view, the state of nature is pre-social in the sense that it

represents a condition before any formal social structures or relationships
emerge. For Hobbes, the state of nature is a brutal, chaotic environment
where individuals act purely out of self-interest, without regard for the
welfare or rights of others. In this natural state, there are no social norms
or cooperation, and humans are driven by fear, self-preservation, and the
desire for power.

Hobbes famously describes life in the state of nature as "solitary, poor,

nasty, brutish, and short." Without any social order, there is constant
conflict (what Hobbes calls the "war of all against all"). In this context,
pre-social means a time before any kind of social contract or organized
society is formed, leaving individuals to act only based on their immediate
desires and needs.

2. John Locke: Pre-Political

For John Locke, the state of nature is pre-political, but not necessarily as
chaotic or violent as Hobbes imagined. Locke's state of nature is a
condition of perfect freedom and equality, where individuals are governed
by the law of nature, which he believed was derived from reason. In this
state, people have the right to life, liberty, and property and are expected
to respect the rights of others. Locke's state of nature is not a state of
constant conflict but one where people may come into conflict over
property or resources, though this is not inevitable.

Locke’s concept of "pre-political" refers to the absence of formal

government or political institutions. Individuals are free to live their lives
as they see fit, guided by natural law, but the lack of an established
political authority leads to inconveniences like lack of protection for
property and disputes being unresolved through impartial adjudication.
Thus, the state of nature is a "pre-political" condition because it exists
before the establishment of political authority and the creation of a formal
system of laws and governance.

Key Differences:

 Pre-Social (Hobbes): Hobbes' state of nature is before the

formation of any social relationships or agreements. It is a time of
lawlessness, where social cooperation does not exist and people are
in constant conflict.
 Pre-Political (Locke): Locke’s state of nature is before the
formation of any political structures (like a government). It is not
inherently violent or chaotic, as long as people respect natural law
and each other’s rights. It is a statue of liberty, but without the
political institutions to protect individual rights or resolve conflicts
impartially.

In summary:

 Hobbes: Pre-social means a world without any social cooperation

or order, where individuals are in constant conflict.
 Locke: Pre-political means a world without government or political
institutions, but where natural law and rights still exist, and
cooperation can happen

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-78)

• The State of Nature: man in this state of nature was a “noble savage”
who led a life of primitive simplicity and idyllic happiness. He was
independent, contented, self- sufficient, healthy, and fearless and
“without need of his fellows or desire to harm them.”

Emergence of Civil Society: individuals became a collective unity – a

society “puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme
direction of the general will and in our corporate capacity we receive each
member as an indivisible part of the whole.

” General Will: only one contract - social and political

The individual surrendered himself completely and unconditionally to the

will of the body of which he became a member. The body so created was
a moral and collective body and Rousseau called it the General Will.

The unique feature of the General Will: It represented collective good

as distinguished from the private interests of its members. It was the will
of all the citizens when they were willing not their own private but the
general good.

All citizens willing the best interests of the community and its lasting
welfare, it must it must be sovereign.

General Will- the genuine interest of a collective body, equivalent to the

common good; the will of all, provided each person acts selflessly.

• Rousseau's writing (Emile and The Social Contract) reflect a deep belief
in the goodness of ‘natural’ men and the corruption of ‘Social Men”.

The Historical or Evolutionary theory

 Key Figures: Edward Burnett Tylor, Lewis Henry Morgan.

 Explanation: The Evolutionary Theory posits that the state evolved
gradually from the kinship-based social organizations of primitive
societies. As human societies grew in size and complexity, families,
tribes, and clans developed systems of leadership and governance.
o The theory suggests that the state was not created all at once
but emerged over time as societies transitioned from simple,
small-scale social structures (tribes, chiefdoms) to more
complexes and institutionalized states. This gradual process
involves the formation of hierarchies, the division of labour,
and the development of laws and institutions.

From the all theories in explanation of the origin of the state, but no single
theory offers an adequate explanation. The theory which explains and is
now accepted as a convincing origin of the state is the Historical or
Evolutionary theory. It explains the state is the product of growth, a slow
and steady evolution extending over a long period of time and ultimately
shaping itself into the complex structure of a modern state. This theory is
more scientific.

The state is neither the handwork of God, nor the result of superior
physical force, nor the creation of evolution or convention, nor a mere
expansion of the family. The state is not a mere artificial mechanical
creation but an institution of natural growth or historical evolution says
Professor Garner.

There were a number of factors which helped the evolution of the state.
They were kinship, religion, war, migration economic activities and
political consciousness. The important factors which contributed to the
growth of the state are

1. Kinship 2. Religion 3. Property and defence 4. Force 5. Political

consciousness

Kinship

Kinship is the most important and was based upon blood relationship and
kinship was the first strongest bond of unity. Family constituted the first
link in the process of the evolution of the state with the expansion of the
family arose new families and the multiplication of families led to the
formation of clans and tribes. Kinship was the only factor which bound the
people together.

According to Professor Mac Iver, the magic of names 'reinforced the sense
of kinship, as the course of generations enlarged the group. The blood
bond of son ship changed imperceptibly into the social bond of the wider
brotherhood. The authority of the father passes into the power of the chief
once more under the aegis of kinship new forms arise which transcends it.
Kinship creates society and society at length creates the state'.

Religion

Religion provided the bond of unity in early society. It also affected all
walks of life. The worship of a common ancestor and common goods
created a sense of social solidarity. There was fear in the hearts of men as
far as religion was concerned. Even today we see religious practices,
affairs and faith in uniting people. In the early days a number of races are
united by religion and unity was essential for the creation of state.

Force

Force also played an important part in the evolution of the state. It was
the use of physical force that was responsible for the growth of kingdoms
and empires.

Property and Defence

Property and defence played a vital role in the evolution of state in

ancient times particularly among the people who were nomads and
vagabonds and tribal. Prof. Laski has referred to the necessity of acquiring
property by the members of society and protecting the property acquired
with reference to the population mentioned above. This led to making
adjustments in the social system and relationship between the members
of different groups. The need to protect property ultimately compelled the
ancient people to establish the state. Political consciousness

The last is political consciousness arising from the fundamental needs

of life for protection and order. When the people settle down on a definite
territory in pursuit of their, subsistence and a desire to secure it from
encroachment by others. The need for regulating things and persons is
felt imminently and this is the essence of political consciousness.

2. Theories on the Role and Purpose of the State

These theories explore the state's function and role in society:

a. Pluralist Theory

 Key Figures: Robert Dahl, David Truman.

 Explanation: Pluralism argues that the state functions as a neutral
mediator between competing interest groups within society.
According to this theory, the state does not serve the interests of a
single class or group, but instead facilitates the competition and
negotiation among multiple groups, each seeking to influence
government policy.
o Pluralists argue that power in society is distributed among
various interest groups (e.g., businesses, labour unions,
advocacy groups), and the state acts as a referee in this
process. The state's role is to balance these competing
interests to maintain stability and order.
o The theory suggests that no single group has absolute control,
and political power is spread across different factions.

b. Elite Theory

 Key Figures: Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels.

 Explanation: Elite Theory claims that despite the appearance of
democracy or mass participation, political power is concentrated in
the hands of a small, elite group. According to this theory, the elites
— whether they are political, economic, military, or intellectual —
control the state and make decisions on behalf of society.
o Elite theorists argue that even in democratic societies, elites
(such as business leaders, high-ranking government officials,
or military officers) dominate the political landscape,
controlling key decisions and policies. The general populace
has limited influence over the state, and real power lies with a
small, organized elite.
o Robert Michels, in his "Iron Law of Oligarchy," argued that all
organizations, including democratic ones, eventually become
dominated by small elite due to organizational and
bureaucratic dynamics.

c. Marxist Theory (State as a Tool of Class Domination)

  Key Figures: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels.
 Explanation: As discussed earlier, Marxists argue that the state
functions primarily to serve the interests of the ruling capitalist
class. The state maintains the existing social and economic order,
protecting the property and privileges of the bourgeoisie while
suppressing the working class (proletariat).
o In Marxist theory, the state's primary role is to preserve
capitalist property relations and ensure the continuation of
economic exploitation. The state functions as an instrument of
class oppression, and its policies are designed to benefit the
capitalist class at the expense of the proletariat.
o Marxists believe that the state will eventually be abolished
after a revolution that leads to the establishment of a
classless society, where the state will "wither away" as a tool
of class domination.

d. Functionalist Theory

 Key Figures: Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons.

 Explanation: The Functionalist theory views the state as an
essential institution that performs necessary functions for the
stability and cohesion of society. According to this theory, the state
plays a critical role in maintaining social order, regulating behaviour,
and ensuring the survival of society.
o Functionalists argue that the state serves a collective need by
providing law and order, ensuring the smooth functioning of
the economy, socializing individuals, and integrating diverse
groups within society.
o The state's role is seen as part of a larger social system,
where each institution (such as education, religion, and the
economy) serves a specific function to maintain the stability
and continuity of society.

e. Anarchist Theory

 Key Figures: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Emma

Goldman.
 Explanation: Anarchists argue that the state is an unnecessary and
coercive institution that serves to perpetuate inequality and
oppression. According to anarchist theory, human societies can
organize themselves without the need for a centralized authority.
o Anarchists contend that the state inherently upholds systems
of power and control (such as capitalism, patriarchy, or
colonialism), and that true freedom can only be achieved
through the abolition of the state.
o Anarchists advocate for self-managed, decentralized forms of
organization, where individuals and communities govern
themselves without hierarchies or rulers.
State and Globalization

The relationship between the state and globalization is complex and

multifaceted. Globalization refers to the increasing interconnectedness
and interdependence of the world’s economies, cultures, societies, and
political systems, driven by advances in technology, trade,
communications, and transportation. The state, as the primary political
entity that governs a territory, interacts with and responds to globalization
in various ways, affecting both its internal structure and its external role in
the international system.

Here’s a detailed explanation of how globalization impacts the state, and

how the state responds to or adapts to globalization:

1. Understanding Globalization

Globalization can be understood in several dimensions:

a. Economic Globalization:

 The integration of national economies into the global market

through trade, investment, and capital flows. This includes the
liberalization of trade (e.g., free trade agreements, WTO), the
expansion of multinational corporations, and the movement of
labour.
 The rise of global financial markets, where capital can flow freely
across borders, affecting national economies.
 Technological advances, especially in information and
communication technologies (ICT), which have made international
business, trade, and communication much more accessible.

b. Cultural Globalization:

 The worldwide spread of ideas, values, media, technology, and

cultural practices. Examples include the global popularity of social
media, Hollywood movies, pop music, and fashion.
 The diffusion of consumer culture, leading to shared global tastes
and behaviours, but also raising concerns about cultural
homogenization and the erosion of local identities.

c. Political Globalization:

 The spread of political ideas and governance structures across

borders, such as democracy, human rights, and international law.
 The rise of global institutions (e.g., the United Nations, World Bank,
International Monetary Fund, and International Criminal Court) that
 affect national sovereignty by imposing international rules and
norms.

d. Environmental Globalization:

 The recognition that environmental issues (e.g., climate change,

biodiversity loss, pollution) transcend national borders and require
international cooperation.
 Environmental movements and agreements (e.g., the Paris Climate
Agreement) that shape state policy and international relations.

2. Globalization and the State: Key Impacts

Globalization influences the state in several key areas, including

sovereignty, policy-making, economic control, social structure, and
political authority.

a. Erosion of State Sovereignty

 Sovereignty refers to the state’s supreme authority within its

territorial borders. Globalization challenges the traditional notion of
sovereignty in multiple ways:
o Global Governance: International organizations and treaties
(e.g., United Nations, World Trade Organization, and European
Union) establish norms and rules that states must follow,
limiting their autonomy. States may face pressure to comply
with international standards, especially in trade, human rights,
and environmental policies.
o Supranational Organizations: In some cases, states cede
part of their sovereignty to regional bodies like the European
Union (EU), where member states share authority on certain
matters (e.g., trade, regulations, immigration). This can result
in diminished control over national policies.
o Transnational Corporations: The increasing power of
multinational corporations can also challenge state
sovereignty. Corporations often operate across borders, and
their economic activities can influence national policies,
especially in areas like labour laws, taxation, and
environmental protection.
o Global Economic Forces: The global economy can
undermine a state's ability to control its own economic
destiny. For example, financial crises or the movement of
capital can destabilize national economies, making states
more dependent on international financial markets.

b. The Decline of the Nation-State Model

 Globalization has led some to argue that the nation-state defined

by territoriality, sovereignty, and centralized government is
 becoming less relevant. The rise of global capitalism, the spread of
technology, and the growing influence of international institutions
have contributed to the idea that the nation-state is being "hollowed
out."
 For example, economic globalization has led to the outsourcing of
production, shifting industries and jobs from one country to another.
This reduces the state’s ability to protect domestic industries and
workers.
 Cultural Globalization also presents a challenge, as cultural
products and identities transcend national borders, leading to the
erosion of traditional national cultures and identities. This can create
tensions between global norms and local cultures.

c. State Responses to Globalization

While globalization challenges the traditional role of the state, it also

prompts states to adapt and respond in various ways:

 Globalization from Above: States, especially powerful ones, have

been key players in shaping globalization. For example, powerful
countries such as the U.S. and China have influenced global
economic systems, trade agreements, and international norms to
advance their interests. Through institutions like the World Trade
Organization (WTO) or International Monetary Fund (IMF), states can
shape the direction of globalization.
 Regulation and Control: While states may lose some control over
their economies due to globalization, they can still exercise control
by regulating industries, protecting domestic markets, and setting
labour or environmental standards. For example, states may enact
protectionist policies, such as tariffs or subsidies, to shield domestic
industries from global competition.
 Adaptation and Integration: States may choose to adapt to
globalization by embracing international trade, treaties, and
cooperation with global institutions. This can include joining
organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO), negotiating
bilateral trade agreements, and participating in climate change
accords (e.g., the Paris Agreement). States actively shape how
globalization works within their borders.
 Regional Integration: Some states have sought to mitigate the
challenges of globalization by forming regional blocs. For example,
the European Union (EU) is an economic and political union that
facilitates regional cooperation and collective bargaining in the
global economy, increasing the bargaining power of its member
states.
 Protection of Local Identity: In reaction to cultural globalization,
states may also strengthen efforts to protect national identity and
cultural heritage. This can include policies to preserve language,
traditions, and local customs, and to limit foreign cultural influence
(e.g., restrictions on foreign media content).
d. State and Global Political Institutions

 As states lose some degree of sovereignty, they often find

themselves increasingly involved in global governance — working
through international organizations like the United Nations (UN),
World Trade Organization (WTO), and the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) to deal with global issues such as climate change,
terrorism, and human rights.
 The state’s role in international law has become more significant.
Treaties, conventions, and agreements now often supersede
national laws, as states cooperate on issues like human rights (e.g.,
Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and environmental
protection (e.g., the Paris Climate Agreement).
 Despite challenges to sovereignty, states still play a crucial role in
global governance, as they are the primary actors in negotiating
and enforcing international agreements and treaties.

e. New Forms of Governance and Authority

 With the growth of globalization, new forms of political authority

and governance have emerged. While states remain central to
political power, non-state actors (such as multinational
corporations, NGOs, and international organizations) also play
a prominent role.
 Global civil society: International networks of non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), social movements, and activists have become
more powerful, advocating for global issues like human rights,
environmental sustainability, and social justice.
 The rise of global public policy also shifts some decision-making
away from national governments and toward international and
transnational bodies. This new governance model includes
negotiations over trade policies, climate change agreements, and
other global issues.

3. The Paradox of Globalization and the State’s Role

The relationship between globalization and the state is characterized by a

paradox:

 Convergence and Divergence: On the one hand, globalization

encourages convergence — the idea that countries are becoming
more alike in terms of culture, economy, and political systems due
to interconnectedness. On the other hand, globalization also triggers
divergence, as states seek to preserve their sovereignty, identity,
and unique characteristics in a globalized world.
 Globalization as both a Challenge and Opportunity:
Globalization poses a challenge to state authority by eroding
traditional forms of sovereignty and creating new forms of
interdependence. However, it also offers opportunities for states to
 engage in new economic, diplomatic, and cultural exchanges that
can enhance national wealth and influence. States must therefore
find a balance between embracing global opportunities and
protecting their national interests.
 Reconfiguration of Power: While states may lose some of their
ability to control economic flows or cultural influences, they can also
gain power in other ways. Through participation in global
institutions, states can exert influence over global norms, and by
adapting to global economic trends, they can enhance their
competitiveness and economic strength.

Nation and Nationalism.

The concepts of nation and nationalism are central to political science,

sociology, and history, as they shape identities, politics, and even global
relations. While they are often used interchangeably in everyday
language, they have distinct meanings. Understanding these concepts
involves exploring their definitions, historical development, and the role
they play in contemporary politics and society.

1. What is a Nation?

A nation can be understood as a collective identity or group of people

who share certain characteristics that distinguish them from other groups.
While there are various ways to define a nation, it generally refers to a
community that has a shared sense of common identity, history, culture,
and often language, religion, or ethnicity.

Key Elements of a Nation:

 Cultural Commonality: Nations often share a set of cultural

practices, traditions, values, and historical experiences that bind
people together. This can include shared customs, myths, literature,
art, and symbols that foster a collective memory and identity.
 Territory: Nations are typically associated with a specific territory,
although this is not always the case. Some nations, such as
Diasporas, may not have a specific homeland but still identify as a
cohesive group (e.g., the Jewish or Kurdish nations). Many nation-
states, however, have a defined geographic territory in which they
exercise sovereignty.
 Language: A common language or linguistic group often plays a
significant role in the formation of a nation, though linguistic
diversity within a nation is also possible (e.g., Canada or India).
Language is a vehicle for cultural expression, education, and
communication, solidifying national identity.
 History and Myths: A shared history or a collective myth is
essential for national identity. Nations often have origin stories,
 historical events, or heroic figures that are remembered and
celebrated, reinforcing the sense of belonging.
 Psychological Bond: Nations are not just political entities but are
often based on emotional connections. A "nation" involves a
psychological sense of shared identity, solidarity, and the feeling of
belonging to a collective community.
 Citizenship and Membership: While historically, nations were
often tied to ethnicity or kinship, in modern times, the concept of
citizenship has become central. Nations often include people of
diverse backgrounds who share a political allegiance to the state,
even if they do not share a common ethnic or cultural heritage (e.g.,
the United States or France).

Types of Nations:

 Ethnic Nations: These nations are defined by a common ethnicity,

language, and culture. Examples include the Kurds, the Basques,
or the Hungarians.
 Civic Nations: These nations are defined by political allegiance and
shared citizenship, rather than ethnicity. Examples include the
United States and France, where individuals are bound together
by allegiance to a common political system and legal framework.
 Cultural Nations: Some nations are defined by shared cultural
practices, even without a central political structure. For instance,
the Roma (Gypsies) are a transnational group with a shared culture
but without a state or common territory.

2. What is Nationalism?

Nationalism is the political ideology and movement that emphasizes the

interests, culture, and identity of a nation or people. It seeks to create,
maintain, or preserve a sense of national unity and sovereignty.
Nationalism is often associated with the idea that each nation has the
right to govern itself and, in some cases, establish its own state.

Key Features of Nationalism:

 National Identity: Nationalism stresses the importance of shared

identity among members of a nation, often focusing on cultural,
historical, or linguistic ties. Nationalists believe that the nation's
interests should be prioritized and that the people who share this
identity should be united in common purpose.
 Self-Determination: One of the most fundamental tenets of
nationalism is self-determination — the idea that a nation should
have the right to govern itself, make decisions about its future, and
 have control over its territory. This principle has been central to
decolonization movements and the independence of many modern
states.
 Sovereignty: Nationalists advocate for the sovereignty of their
nation, often challenging foreign influence or intervention. National
sovereignty is the idea that a nation has full control over its political
and economic decisions without external interference.
 Exclusivity: While nationalism can promote unity and pride, it can
also have exclusionary aspects. Nationalism sometimes defines
membership in the nation in restrictive terms based on ethnicity,
culture, or religion which can lead to the exclusion of those who do
not fit the national mold.
 Patriotism and Pride: Nationalism fosters a strong sense of
patriotism and pride in the achievements and identity of the nation.
This pride can take the form of national celebrations, symbols, flags,
anthems, and historical commemorations.
 National Projects: Nationalism often involves specific political or
social projects aimed at strengthening the nation. This could include
territorial expansion, unification of fragmented regions, or the
creation of national institutions (e.g., the founding of a national
language, national education systems, or national armies).

Types of Nationalism:

 Ethnic Nationalism: This form of nationalism emphasizes the idea

that a nation is fundamentally rooted in a common ethnic or cultural
identity. It seeks to create or preserve a state based on ethnic
homogeneity, where people share a common descent, language, or
heritage. Ethnic nationalism can be exclusionary and may
marginalize people who do not share the same ethnic background
(e.g., the Tamil nationalism in Sri Lanka or the Kurdish nationalism).
 Civic Nationalism: Civic nationalism is based on the belief that a
nation is defined by shared values, citizenship, and legal rights,
rather than ethnic or cultural homogeneity. It emphasizes inclusivity
and the idea that anyone who subscribes to the nation's political
system and values can be part of the nation. Countries like the
United States, France, and Canada are often cited as examples of
civic nationalism.
 Cultural Nationalism: This form of nationalism is concerned with
the preservation and promotion of the culture, traditions, and
language of a nation. It does not necessarily require political
independence but focuses on the protection of cultural identity
against external influences (e.g., Indian nationalism in the context
of British colonialism).
 Expansionist Nationalism: Some forms of nationalism advocate
for territorial expansion to unite all members of a nation, often with
the aim of incorporating neighbouring territories or peoples
considered to be part of the "nation." Expansionist nationalism has
historically been associated with imperialism and the pursuit of
 national "greatness" (e.g., Pan-Germanism in the 19th and 20th
centuries or Manifest Destiny in the United States).
 Anti-Colonial Nationalism: Nationalism has played a critical role
in movements for independence in colonized countries. Anti-colonial
nationalism seeks to free a nation or people from foreign domination
and establish an independent state. This type of nationalism was
central to the decolonization movements of the 20th century, such
as in India, Algeria, and Vietnam.
 Religious Nationalism: This form of nationalism ties the identity of
the nation to a particular religion, viewing the nation as an
extension of the religious community. Religious nationalism can play
a role in the politics of countries like Israel, Iran, and India (in the
context of Hindu nationalism).

3. Historical Development of Nations and Nationalism

The development of nations and nationalism has evolved over time. While
the concept of a nation-state is relatively modern (dating back to the 17th
and 18th centuries), the roots of nationalism can be traced to earlier
historical movements:

a. Early Formation of Nations

 In pre-modern societies, collective identities were often based on

kinship, tribe, and religion rather than the modern concept of the
nation. Ancient empires (e.g., the Roman Empire) and kingdoms
(e.g., the Kingdom of England) were built around rulers and their
territories, with less emphasis on shared identity among the people.
 Medieval and Feudal Societies: In medieval Europe, the idea of a
nation was often linked to religious and monarchical authority.
Political entities like kingdoms were defined by dynasties and
religious affiliations (e.g., the Holy Roman Empire).

b. The Rise of Nationalism in the Modern Era

 Nationalism began to take its modern form in the 18th and 19th
centuries, coinciding with the rise of democracy, revolutionary
movements, and the decline of monarchical and imperial
structures.
o The French Revolution (1789): This is often seen as the
birthplace of modern nationalism, as the revolutionaries
promoted the idea that sovereignty belongs to the people of
the nation, not to monarchs or elites. The Declaration of the
Rights of Man and Citizen emphasized the concept of the
nation as a collective political entity.
o The Napoleonic Wars: Napoleon’s conquests spread
nationalist ideas across Europe, leading to the creation of
nation-states, such as the unification of Italy and Germany.
  The 19th Century: Nationalism spread throughout Europe and the
world. Nationalist movements led to the formation of unified nation-
states and the breakup of empires (e.g., the Ottoman, Austrian, and
Russian Empires). The unification of Germany and Italy in the
19th century was major examples of successful nationalist
movements.

c. Nationalism and Empire

 Empires such as the British Empire, Ottoman Empire, and

Austro-Hungarian Empire were challenged by nationalist
movements, often leading to the creation of independent states in
regions like Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe.

d. Nationalism in the 20th and 21st Centuries

 Post-World War I: The collapse of empires after World War I (e.g.,

Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian) led to the creation of new
nation-states based on the principle of self-determination (e.g.,
Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia).
 Decolonization: After World War II, many colonies in Africa, Asia,
and the Caribbean achieved independence through nationalist
movements. India’s independence from Britain in 1947 and the
decolonization of Africa in the 1950s-70s were key milestones in the
history of nationalism.
 Contemporary Nationalism: In the 21st century, nationalism has
made resurgence, with movements focused on issues like
immigration, national identity, and cultural preservation.
Nationalism is also evident in political shifts like Brexit in the UK
and the rise of nationalist leaders in countries like the United
States (Donald Trump), Brazil (Jair Bolsonaro), and Hungary
(Viktor Orbán).

4. Implications of Nationalism

 Positive Aspects:
o Nationalism can promote unity, pride, and social cohesion. It
can inspire individuals to work for the common good, preserve
cultural heritage, and support national projects.
o Nationalism can also drive self-determination, encouraging
marginalized groups to form their own nations and assert their
rights (e.g., India’s independence from Britain or African
independence movements).
 Negative Aspects:
o Nationalism can also be exclusionary, leading to xenophobia
or ethnic conflict. It can promote division between nations,
foster intolerance, and justify oppression or violence against
minority groups (e.g., ethnic nationalism).
o Extreme forms of nationalism, such as fascism, have
historically led to violence, war, and the suppression of
democratic ideals.